OT: PhD in Electronic Engineering
Bob
Just wondering if the experienced engineers in the "real world" could
help me out a little with this:
I'm about to finish my BEng in Electronic Engineering (UK degree), and
last week an academic from my university offered me a fully funded
(tuition fees + living expenses) PhD in analog IC design. Great, I
thought, a free PhD, working with a bunch of great people, in an area
that interest me, at one of the top universities in the country.
BUT:
I am not really aiming for a career in academia, or full-on research,
for that matter. In fact, I have always been more of a hands-on guy,
doing electronics as a hobby for quite a while now. For after uni, I was
hoping to land a job as an electronics design engineer (hence posting
here), because I think I might enjoy actually making stuff that sees use
in the real world.
Now, I have doubts if a PhD will do me any good for that kind of career
goal. First, I'm not sure whether employers for "normal" electronics R&D
jobs even want PhDs - I'm assuming a bachelor's or master's degree with
work experience would be more appreciated. Then, there is also this
smell of a highly specialized theoretician that a PhD carries (hence why
I haven't considered doing one so far). Although I'm wondering if my
electronics hobby could show that I am actually someone who knows about
"real world" electronics. Though I might just have illusions about how
electronic engineering actually is "out there"...
An alternative would be to spend another year on a taught MSc
(coursework on MSc level, but no strong research component), to just get
a more specialized education, without the ivory tower appeal of a PhD.
I also have this job with a 2-man shop lined up where I could work for
one year pretty much doing electronics design on my own, just to get a
nice portfolio to show off when applying for a "real" company afterwards.
It's probably just worth mentioning that I don't really intend to settle
down in the UK, so it would be interesting how this issue is viewed
somewhere else.
So, my questions to the seasoned engineers:
PhD for electronics: even bother?
If yes, to what extent does doing practical work on the side help?
Or would you rather recommend just getting a "quick" MSc?
Or not bother with further education at all, and just dive straight into
the real word?
Any other suggestions?
I am looking forward to your comments!
Cheers,
Robert
David L. Jones
> So, my questions to the seasoned engineers:
> PhD for electronics: even bother?
Generally no, it's a hinderance for the majority of practical industry jobs.
You could however always leave it completely off your Resume for some
jobs...
> If yes, to what extent does doing practical work on the side help?
Practical work is everything.
One you have experinence your qualifications become almost irrelevant. But a
PhD can often be a hinderance to getting a practical job.
> Or would you rather recommend just getting a "quick" MSc?
That generally won't hurt.
> Or not bother with further education at all, and just dive straight
> into the real word?
Nothing beats real world experience.
But on the flip side getting further education later on in life can be
tough, better to get that while you are yong.
Dave.
--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com
David Eather
Don't be a dickhead - Do the PhD. The only people who will say you don't
need a PhD are people who don't have one. You will probably never get
another opportunity and you will certainly never get a better
opportunity. A PhD will open a vast range of doors that an undergrad
degree won't and many doors a Master's won't. If for a particular reason
it might be a hindrance than you can leave it out of the resume, but
those cases will be rare and will also becoming rarer.
50 year ago a certificate was a "good" qualification and you could get a
job almost anywhere, 30 years ago a diploma was "good" but it's not now,
in another 10 - 20 years an undergrad degree will not be as any where
near as valuable as it once was. The world-wide emphasis in business now
is to employ qualifications to ensure compliance to regulations. That
won't change unless all the worlds lawyers, politicians, bureaucrats and
lawsuits disappear. If you don't have the paper you won't get through
the door, regardless of how skilled you are. The practical experience is
invaluable to you - but note well the order in which things happen - If
you don't have the paper you won't get through the door, regardless of
how skilled you are.
Jan Panteltje
<eat...@tpg.com.au> wrote in <-uqdnVb8NdOkkGTW...@giganews.com>:
>invaluable to you - but note well the order in which things happen - If
>you don't have the paper you won't get through the door, regardless of
>how skilled you are.
A normal person knows a little bit about many things.
A PhD know a lot about little.
And a professor knows everything about nothing.
The trend, is the writing on the wall, I recently came across an other idiotic publication.
Papers are written...
Those come in rolls too, as tissue paper.
There are PhDs selling chips, and there is a student who dropped out and became the richest man in the world.
You can STILL be president without one...
In some cases a PhD may be too expensive to hire.
petrus bitbyter
"David Eather" <eat...@tpg.com.au> schreef in bericht
news:-uqdnVb8NdOkkGTW...@giganews.com...
Fully agree.
petrus bitbyter
Bob
>> So, my questions to the seasoned engineers:
>> PhD for electronics: even bother?
> Generally no, it's a hinderance for the majority of practical industry jobs.
> You could however always leave it completely off your Resume for some
> jobs...
Ok, thanks for your opinion there.
But just out of curiosity (and since David Eather mentioned it, too):
Wouldn't leaving it off a resume look pretty weird? And after all, I'd
imagine the prospective employer inquire about that 3-year gap, so
"hiding" won't really work ;)
>> Or would you rather recommend just getting a "quick" MSc?
> That generally won't hurt.
Good to know...
>> Or not bother with further education at all, and just dive straight
>> into the real word?
> Nothing beats real world experience.
> But on the flip side getting further education later on in life can be
> tough, better to get that while you are yong.
That's one reason why I've also brought up that taught MSc: Right now
I'm still in that whole "student thought pattern", and I could do
another year easily. But in ten years perhaps - not so sure.
Anyway, thank you very much so far,
Robert
PS: Looking forward to your EEVblog live show later - good luck with that!
Bob
> You will probably never get
> another opportunity and you will certainly never get a better
> opportunity.
That's the exact reason why I'm having a hard time just saying "no
thanks": The offer is just so juicy, and it's really an unique opportunity.
> 50 year ago a certificate was a "good" qualification and you could get a
> job almost anywhere, 30 years ago a diploma was "good" but it's not now,
> in another 10 - 20 years an undergrad degree will not be as any where
> near as valuable as it once was.
True.
> If you don't have the paper you won't get through
> the door, regardless of how skilled you are. The practical experience is
> invaluable to you - but note well the order in which things happen - If
> you don't have the paper you won't get through the door, regardless of
> how skilled you are.
Point taken, especially with respect to the "devaluation" of
qualifications you mentioned before.
But I'm wondering: If there is an employer who is really keen that all
applicants have the right paper, surely this could work against higher
qualifications, too? In other words, if an employer wants to hire
someone and believe they need a MSc, why should they hire (and pay for)
a PhD? Just wondering...
Thanks for your good post!
Cheers,
Robert
mpm
One other thing to consider is that over the last couple decades, EE
careers have morphed into serial job hunting exercises on a per-
project basis.
Companies just don't seem too interested in tenured EE's anymore.
It used to be an EE (of any stripe) was your ticket to a long,
rewarding career. Not anymore.
Now, (with rare exception) you can expect to be shuffled back and
forth between companies as their economic well-being flows with the
tide, and as their product life cycles play out in the market. --
which life cycles can be exceedingly short these days!! Cell phones
(and almost anything telecom-related) are good examples. Ditto if
you're into software. Maybe 5x ditto?
A Ph.D. wouldn't hurt of course, particularly if you can somehow
manage to start any kind of "part time" gig to at least chip away at
the experience curve.
In many fields, employers will often value experience over academia,
with the exception of certain job functions (many relating to product
liability, for example, where a Ph.D. pulls additional weight before a
judge.)
Another "benefit" of a Ph.D. status is that it will likely shut you
out of low-paying, low-advancement opportunities you probably wouldn't
want in the first place.
An insurance policy of sorts, to keep you from accepting dead-end
jobs.
In any event, the better letters to put behind your name would be
P.E., not simply Ph.D.
I feel that would open up many more doors, and financial rewards for
you.
-mpm
John Larkin
wrote:
If you want to spend the rest of your career designing ICs at the
device/materials level, the PhD is probably worth having. Your future
employer would probably be one of the big semiconductor or fab
equipment companies, likely not in the UK.
If you want to do the kind of electronics design the involves parts,
boards, sensors, processors, control loops, optics, power, fun stuff
like that, the PhD is useless or less. I design electronics at the
board and system level, and I'd be less likely to hire someone who
spent that long in school. The best EEs that I know tended to get out
of school and get to work as soon as they could, and keep learning as
needed.
Today's job market being what it is, it's a close call.
John
Jim Thompson
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 May 2010 10:39:55 +0100, Bob <etswy...@mailinator.com>
>wrote:
>
[snip]
>>
>>So, my questions to the seasoned engineers:
>>PhD for electronics: even bother?
>>If yes, to what extent does doing practical work on the side help?
>>Or would you rather recommend just getting a "quick" MSc?
>>Or not bother with further education at all, and just dive straight into
>>the real word?
>>Any other suggestions?
>>
>>I am looking forward to your comments!
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Robert
>
>
>If you want to spend the rest of your career designing ICs at the
>device/materials level, the PhD is probably worth having. Your future
>employer would probably be one of the big semiconductor or fab
>equipment companies, likely not in the UK.
>
>If you want to do the kind of electronics design the involves parts,
>boards, sensors, processors, control loops, optics, power, fun stuff
>like that, the PhD is useless or less. I design electronics at the
>board and system level, and I'd be less likely to hire someone who
>spent that long in school. The best EEs that I know tended to get out
>of school and get to work as soon as they could, and keep learning as
>needed.
>
>Today's job market being what it is, it's a close call.
>
>John
>
>
A PhD is useless for _circuit_ design. Circuit design is an art,
either you have it, or you don't
BUT, as John says, given the job market situation right now, hanging
out in academia is bound to be better than unemployment.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
Tim Wescott
What do you want to do?
For getting a "regular" job you can make it not matter: on your resume
put an "objectives" section that says "getting real world experience at
a (insert your smarmy positive adjective here) company", and when you
interview just blush and say it was fully funded and you couldn't resist.
Once you're out there working, there are few times that having a PhD
will really hurt. If you're a useless screwup folks will see you as an
arrogant, stuck up, useless screwup as opposed to a pitiful sad-sack
sort of guy. If you go to work for someone who barely scraped up a BS
and feels defensive it'll be a problem. Other than that, just
pretending that you stumbled into it will take care of things.
There are jobs for which having a PhD is a real help. PhD's seem to
impress the hell out of non-engineers. So if you ever get into a
position to be on the ground floor of a startup, folks will like having
you in some sort of a technical lead (or technical executive) position:
(Your partner): "This is Bob, our CTO. He has a PhD _in_ _science_."
(Venture Capitalists): "Ooooooh!"
Ditto if you're going to be interfacing with military types. Also, if
you ever end up managing a group that has a lot of PhDs in it, or is
composed entirely of PhDs, they'll see yours as "street cred" and give
you a lot more slack when you screw up (this is the opposite side of the
coin to what happens if you're working with a bunch of Bachelor degrees
and you're a screwup).
One thing that employers of a certain kind _do_ look for, and _do_ hire
(and pay more) for guys with PhDs, is when they are doing something
that's just entirely new and unique and has all sorts of nasty unknown
problems. They understand that, as a PhD candidate, you have already
worked for years on intractable problems for little rewards and fewer
social benefits, so they'll have a good idea of the kinds of jobs that
you'll put up with in industry.
--
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com
qrk
wrote:
>Hi everyone,
An opportunity to learn analog IC design is something you don't want
to turn down, PhD or not. Even if you don't end up doing IC design,
the knowledge will be handy if you stick with circuit design.
John Larkin
wrote:
>
>Ditto if you're going to be interfacing with military types. Also, if
>you ever end up managing a group that has a lot of PhDs in it, or is
>composed entirely of PhDs, they'll see yours as "street cred" and give
>you a lot more slack when you screw up (this is the opposite side of the
>coin to what happens if you're working with a bunch of Bachelor degrees
>and you're a screwup).
Some PhDs are unwilling to respect the opinions of non-same. I just
don't work with or hire people like that. PhDs tend to be mediocre
circuit designers anyhow; too much respect for convention, too much
fear of thinking crazy. Ooh, we have a signal, let's use a
differential jfet pair, because that's all we see in the literature!
The horrors I've seen.
>
>One thing that employers of a certain kind _do_ look for, and _do_ hire
>(and pay more) for guys with PhDs, is when they are doing something
>that's just entirely new and unique and has all sorts of nasty unknown
>problems. They understand that, as a PhD candidate, you have already
>worked for years on intractable problems for little rewards and fewer
>social benefits, so they'll have a good idea of the kinds of jobs that
>you'll put up with in industry.
PhDs tend to be good at fundamental "scientific" problems that involve
a lot of math. I say "scientific" in the sense of discovering
precisely how nature works, which is not what electronic design is
about.
One's best career choices depend a lot on one's personality.
John
John Larkin
I avoided higher education for the same reason I avoided military
service: I was worried that it would beat the creativity out of me.
John
Michael A. Terrell
John Larkin wrote:
>
> I avoided higher education for the same reason I avoided military
> service: I was worried that it would beat the creativity out of me.
All they can do is court martial you for being creative in the
military. They tried to do that to me after I made a replacement TV
tuner, for a piece of TV broadcast equipment. The original was NLA, and
a custom replacement from the OEM was more than the piece of equipment
cost new. It was critical to the operation of the station. It was an
all tube TV demodulator with a wafer switch type TV tuner. Several of
the wafers were broken, and we couldn't look at our OTA signal on the
other test equipment without it.
--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
Bob
> A Ph.D. wouldn't hurt of course, particularly if you can somehow
> manage to start any kind of "part time" gig to at least chip away at
> the experience curve.
Yes, that's what I was hoping to be able to do, just to show that I'm
not just good at producing stacks of paper.
> Another "benefit" of a Ph.D. status is that it will likely shut you
> out of low-paying, low-advancement opportunities you probably wouldn't
> want in the first place.
> An insurance policy of sorts, to keep you from accepting dead-end
> jobs.
Good point!
> In any event, the better letters to put behind your name would be
> P.E., not simply Ph.D.
> I feel that would open up many more doors, and financial rewards for
> you.
Yes! I understand very well the benefits of a professional engineering
status, and I would see that I could obtain one.
Thanks for your comments!
Cheers,
Robert
Bob
>> If you want to spend the rest of your career designing ICs at the
>> device/materials level, the PhD is probably worth having. Your future
>> employer would probably be one of the big semiconductor or fab
>> equipment companies, likely not in the UK.
...or one of those infamous university spin-outs ;)
>> If you want to do the kind of electronics design the involves parts,
>> boards, sensors, processors, control loops, optics, power, fun stuff
>> like that, the PhD is useless or less.
To also answer Tim Wescott's "What do you want to do?" question here:
As I've said, I've been doing "classic" hobby electronics (probably 25
years late for that, but whatever), building all sorts of gear, learning
from explosive escapes of magic smoke, getting my own small lab set up,
and whatnot.
Now I have this quaint image that there may be a small number of
electronics design jobs that do around exactly that: Come up with a
solution to a problem, try it on the bench, see that it makes it to the
real world. The "fun stuff", as you say.
I was actually fairly lucky with my past summer jobs (and that other job
I would be able to take for a while) at that small shop, because there I
could do exactly that: "We need some special current source" "Yes, can
do!" "Now something in MATLAB to control it" "Yes, sir!" and so on. But
working there is no real option in the long run ($-wise), and I also
fear that a "jack of all trades" in EE is becoming more and more an
illusion for most industries thanks to things getting more and more
complex (correct me if I'm wrong there).
>> I design electronics at the
>> board and system level, and I'd be less likely to hire someone who
>> spent that long in school. The best EEs that I know tended to get out
>> of school and get to work as soon as they could, and keep learning as
>> needed.
Fair enough, and good to know.
> A PhD is useless for _circuit_ design. Circuit design is an art,
> either you have it, or you don't
True. Come to think of it, there is actually a fair number of
electronics books that have "Art" in their title... should make one
think! ;)
Thanks to both of you!
Cheers,
Robert
John Larkin
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> I avoided higher education for the same reason I avoided military
>> service: I was worried that it would beat the creativity out of me.
>
>
> All they can do is court martial you for being creative in the
>military. They tried to do that to me after I made a replacement TV
>tuner, for a piece of TV broadcast equipment. The original was NLA, and
>a custom replacement from the OEM was more than the piece of equipment
>cost new. It was critical to the operation of the station. It was an
>all tube TV demodulator with a wafer switch type TV tuner. Several of
>the wafers were broken, and we couldn't look at our OTA signal on the
>other test equipment without it.
They court martialled you for that? For fixing broken things?
I was actually in the Navy for a week, sort of a guest, when I was in
high school. They flew (another story) us to the base in Charleston to
show us how much we'd like being naval officers. It was fun but the
career really didn't appeal to me. I figured that if I had to serve,
I'd let them draft me so I could get it over in two years. I
eventually got an occupational deferrment (I was designing stuff for
the C5A and the LHA ships and some other programs) and then I got a
high lottery number. I would have been a pretty bad soldier anyhow.
John
Bob
> For getting a "regular" job you can make it not matter: on your resume
> put an "objectives" section that says "getting real world experience at
> a (insert your smarmy positive adjective here) company", and when you
> interview just blush and say it was fully funded and you couldn't resist.
That's actually a really good suggestion (in my eyes at least)! Like it
much better than just leaving a 3-year gap, and it's actually the truth:
It's hard to resist, and I suppose most can understand that.
> There are jobs for which having a PhD is a real help. PhD's seem to
> impress the hell out of non-engineers. [...]
Good insights on the social aspects there, thanks for that! That's
really the kind of angle I'm totally lacking right now as a student with
not too much experience out there.
Cheers,
Robert
John Larkin
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>>> If you want to spend the rest of your career designing ICs at the
>>> device/materials level, the PhD is probably worth having. Your future
>>> employer would probably be one of the big semiconductor or fab
>>> equipment companies, likely not in the UK.
>
>...or one of those infamous university spin-outs ;)
>
>>> If you want to do the kind of electronics design the involves parts,
>>> boards, sensors, processors, control loops, optics, power, fun stuff
>>> like that, the PhD is useless or less.
>
>To also answer Tim Wescott's "What do you want to do?" question here:
>As I've said, I've been doing "classic" hobby electronics (probably 25
>years late for that, but whatever), building all sorts of gear, learning
>from explosive escapes of magic smoke, getting my own small lab set up,
>and whatnot.
>
>Now I have this quaint image that there may be a small number of
>electronics design jobs that do around exactly that: Come up with a
>solution to a problem, try it on the bench, see that it makes it to the
>real world. The "fun stuff", as you say.
That's what I do. I've been fortunate in working for a lot of
companies that had really, really bad marketing (including my own) so
I got hit with all sorts of weird and unrelated problems. Accelerator
physics, lasers, motors, AC power, radiation detectors, optics, steam
engines, jet engines, piston engines, semiconductor fab, X-rays,
superconductors, spectroscopy, thermocouples, waveform generators,
cameras, picoseconds, femtoamps, software, nanotech, nuclear weapons,
so much stuff I can hardly remember. I get to play with all those toys
for a while without the tedium of being a postdoc or working for some
big company on the same project for 16 years.
But everybody's different.
John
Joerg
> John Larkin wrote:
>> I avoided higher education for the same reason I avoided military
>> service: I was worried that it would beat the creativity out of me.
>
To Bob: Depends on what they want you to do during that Ph.D. time. If
it's an interesting topic go for it. If not, I wouldn't do it but that's
my personal opinion. I also was offered a Ph.D. track (paid) but
declined. I had seen first hand the bureaucratic hurdles while doing my
final project. For example, getting materials was a pain in the neck. I
just wanted them to hand me my masters and then hightail it into
industry. Which is what I did, never looked back.
As for what Ph.D. does on a resume, as a hiring manager I never cared.
It was neither a plus nor a minus. Leaving it off the resume may not be
so cool because an alert interviewer will want to know what you did
during all those years.
>
> All they can do is court martial you for being creative in the
> military. They tried to do that to me after I made a replacement TV
> tuner, for a piece of TV broadcast equipment. The original was NLA, and
> a custom replacement from the OEM was more than the piece of equipment
> cost new. It was critical to the operation of the station. It was an
> all tube TV demodulator with a wafer switch type TV tuner. Several of
> the wafers were broken, and we couldn't look at our OTA signal on the
> other test equipment without it.
>
I got read the riot act because a clandestine soldering iron (mine, from
home) was found on our multiplex truck during an unannounced inspection
and unfortunately some big brass was present. A contributing factor to
the summons was a <gasp> unauthorized non-drab-green and thus
non-army-issue spool of solder. One was supposed to call the maintenance
truck and never, ever, blah, blah, blah. This was all actually not said
but hollered at me.
After a brief "discussion" I got them to check some records. Turns out
our multiplex truck was the only one that never failed to report being
fully operational when commanded to be, and in record time. And we had
never called the service truck, ever. "Umm, ok, that's impressive. But
make sure we never FIND a solder iron again on your unit, will ya?" ...
"Yes, SIR!", saluted, and went back to business as usual.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Phil Hobbs
In general I think physical science Ph.D.'s are more useful than EE
ones--I considered both and decided to continue in physics. EE course
work (even in grad school) tends to emphasize massive quantities of
fairly routine work, so that you can get by fine if you don't need a lot
of sleep. Physics course work typically gives you not 100 routine
problems but 3 or 4 insanely difficult ones--you're dead if you don't
have a study group. The result is that EE Ph.D.'s think somewhat
differently than physicists. Since for relatively routine design work,
lots of companies think that a Ph.D. is likely to be too specialized,
you might as well get the benefit of the out-of-the-box thinking if
you're going to do all that work.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
Michael A. Terrell
John Larkin wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:51:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >John Larkin wrote:
> >>
> >> I avoided higher education for the same reason I avoided military
> >> service: I was worried that it would beat the creativity out of me.
> >
> >
> > All they can do is court martial you for being creative in the
> >military. They tried to do that to me after I made a replacement TV
> >tuner, for a piece of TV broadcast equipment. The original was NLA, and
> >a custom replacement from the OEM was more than the piece of equipment
> >cost new. It was critical to the operation of the station. It was an
> >all tube TV demodulator with a wafer switch type TV tuner. Several of
> >the wafers were broken, and we couldn't look at our OTA signal on the
> >other test equipment without it.
>
> They court martialled you for that? For fixing broken things?
They tried to. The charge was to be 'Destruction of Government
Property' since I did the work outside of a military 'Service Depot'.
The TV station had been waiting over three years for the people from the
(only) AFRTS Service Depot in Sacramento, CA. to show up and do their
job. The charges were never formalized. They ended up 'going away'
when the USARL Commanding General heard about it. For one thing, he was
happy that someone was willing to do repairs, and the other was that
most people couldn't find the work I did.
> I was actually in the Navy for a week, sort of a guest, when I was in
> high school. They flew (another story) us to the base in Charleston to
> show us how much we'd like being naval officers. It was fun but the
> career really didn't appeal to me. I figured that if I had to serve,
> I'd let them draft me so I could get it over in two years. I
> eventually got an occupational deferrment (I was designing stuff for
> the C5A and the LHA ships and some other programs) and then I got a
> high lottery number. I would have been a pretty bad soldier anyhow.
They kept telling me that I wasn't very 'GI'. I would just laugh and
tell them, "I'm 'US' dammit. You drafted me, so learn to live with it!
Now leave me alone, so I can do my job."
GI = Enlisted
US = Draftee
I was rejected from enlistment for five separate medical 4F ratings,
but that didn't stop them from drafting me for my electronics skills. :)
Ian Bell
> Hi everyone,
>
> Just wondering if the experienced engineers in the "real world" could
> help me out a little with this:
>
> I'm about to finish my BEng in Electronic Engineering (UK degree), and
> last week an academic from my university offered me a fully funded
> (tuition fees + living expenses) PhD in analog IC design. Great, I
> thought, a free PhD, working with a bunch of great people, in an area
> that interest me, at one of the top universities in the country.
>
> BUT:
etc snipped
Depends on to what you aspire. I have no PhD (though like you I was
offered one based on my final year project) and graduated in 73 from
Nottingham. I worked for a few companies that mainly employed engineers
with first degrees only and found it weasy to compete with them. Then I
joined a company that had a significant proportion of PhDs and I found
myself going from being a big fish in a small pond to a small fish in a
big pond. It was a challenge - these guys were good - but I did OK and
in 87 a bunch of us left to set up our own company. At that point the
majority of the employees were PhDs. We grew that company to over 300
employees and 14 years later floated one division on the stock market. I
owned 1.5% of that $500 million company and was able to retire aged 50.
None of that would have happened without the PhD guys and my ability to
keep up with them. So my advice would be that PhDs open doors that first
degrees do not and unless you are lucky like me and fall in with a bunch
of them you prospects are less. So I would say get the PhD. I know I
wish I had.
Cheers
Ian
Michael A. Terrell
We were issued the tools (including soldering irons) and test
equipment, but it was against regulations to do any actual repairs.
Transmitter died and it isn't a bad tube? Crate it up and ship it to
the depot, even if it means being off the air for months, or years. Of
course, that was against regulations, too. I read all the rules about
the station, as well as the SOP and realized that no where did it state
that we couldn't call the station a service depot, or what the policy
was to become a service depot. SO, I declared it a depot and did the
work.
I found out years later that the radio station at Ft. Greely was one
of the first GI built stations, and later one of the first permanent
AFRN radio stations. I could have claimed there was precedent for the
staff to do their own repairs. :)
> After a brief "discussion" I got them to check some records. Turns out
> our multiplex truck was the only one that never failed to report being
> fully operational when commanded to be, and in record time. And we had
> never called the service truck, ever. "Umm, ok, that's impressive. But
> make sure we never FIND a solder iron again on your unit, will ya?" ...
> "Yes, SIR!", saluted, and went back to business as usual.
I had to put up with a station manger with a ham license who thought
the TV transmitters were Swan SSB rigs, and a base information officer
who despised radio & TV because they gave another way to get the news.
Both were always looking for a way to cause me trouble. They soon
discovered that a happy general outranks any ticked off officer or NCO.
Joerg
> Joerg wrote:
>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
[...]
>>> All they can do is court martial you for being creative in the
>>> military. They tried to do that to me after I made a replacement TV
>>> tuner, for a piece of TV broadcast equipment. The original was NLA, and
>>> a custom replacement from the OEM was more than the piece of equipment
>>> cost new. It was critical to the operation of the station. It was an
>>> all tube TV demodulator with a wafer switch type TV tuner. Several of
>>> the wafers were broken, and we couldn't look at our OTA signal on the
>>> other test equipment without it.
>>>
>> I got read the riot act because a clandestine soldering iron (mine, from
>> home) was found on our multiplex truck during an unannounced inspection
>> and unfortunately some big brass was present. A contributing factor to
>> the summons was a <gasp> unauthorized non-drab-green and thus
>> non-army-issue spool of solder. One was supposed to call the maintenance
>> truck and never, ever, blah, blah, blah. This was all actually not said
>> but hollered at me.
>
>
> We were issued the tools (including soldering irons) and test
> equipment, but it was against regulations to do any actual repairs.
Weird. Why would they issue solder irons then?
> Transmitter died and it isn't a bad tube? Crate it up and ship it to
> the depot, even if it means being off the air for months, or years. Of
> course, that was against regulations, too. I read all the rules about
> the station, as well as the SOP and realized that no where did it state
> that we couldn't call the station a service depot, or what the policy
> was to become a service depot. SO, I declared it a depot and did the
> work.
>
> I found out years later that the radio station at Ft. Greely was one
> of the first GI built stations, and later one of the first permanent
> AFRN radio stations. I could have claimed there was precedent for the
> staff to do their own repairs. :)
>
Sometimes someone has to be brazen enough and just do it, then others
will follow. Once there's a well-trodden path it becomes "the standard".
>
>> After a brief "discussion" I got them to check some records. Turns out
>> our multiplex truck was the only one that never failed to report being
>> fully operational when commanded to be, and in record time. And we had
>> never called the service truck, ever. "Umm, ok, that's impressive. But
>> make sure we never FIND a solder iron again on your unit, will ya?" ...
>> "Yes, SIR!", saluted, and went back to business as usual.
>
>
> I had to put up with a station manger with a ham license who thought
> the TV transmitters were Swan SSB rigs, and a base information officer
> who despised radio & TV because they gave another way to get the news.
> Both were always looking for a way to cause me trouble. They soon
> discovered that a happy general outranks any ticked off officer or NCO.
>
My luck was that the whole assignment of me leading this multiplex unit
was already violating the standard operating procedure. Because the SOP
said that this must be a staff sergeant or higher rank and I was only a
corporal. So even if we hadn't achieved such a good record, making too
big a fuss out of this situation would have automatically resulted in
some egg in the face much higher up.
WRT ham radio I have a license and so did one other guy. The shortwave
trucks always had a problem getting a link, despite huge antennas and a
5kW generator. So one day when we were next to them and the other guy
was next to their SW station, and they couldn't get it done, we fired up
out transceivers that we had brought along, clandestinely of course ...
<whistle>
Long story short we could immediately establish a connection on 80m,
voice and CW. With a piece of wire thrown into a tree while they had two
full-fledged masts. AFAICT the reason why the army issue gear didn't
work well was that it really consisted of antiques compared to ham radio
gear.
Michael A. Terrell
Joerg wrote:
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> > Joerg wrote:
> >> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> All they can do is court martial you for being creative in the
> >>> military. They tried to do that to me after I made a replacement TV
> >>> tuner, for a piece of TV broadcast equipment. The original was NLA, and
> >>> a custom replacement from the OEM was more than the piece of equipment
> >>> cost new. It was critical to the operation of the station. It was an
> >>> all tube TV demodulator with a wafer switch type TV tuner. Several of
> >>> the wafers were broken, and we couldn't look at our OTA signal on the
> >>> other test equipment without it.
> >>>
> >> I got read the riot act because a clandestine soldering iron (mine, from
> >> home) was found on our multiplex truck during an unannounced inspection
> >> and unfortunately some big brass was present. A contributing factor to
> >> the summons was a <gasp> unauthorized non-drab-green and thus
> >> non-army-issue spool of solder. One was supposed to call the maintenance
> >> truck and never, ever, blah, blah, blah. This was all actually not said
> >> but hollered at me.
> >
> >
> > We were issued the tools (including soldering irons) and test
> > equipment, but it was against regulations to do any actual repairs.
>
> Weird. Why would they issue solder irons then?
To repair mic cables. Everything else was prohibited.
> > Transmitter died and it isn't a bad tube? Crate it up and ship it to
> > the depot, even if it means being off the air for months, or years. Of
> > course, that was against regulations, too. I read all the rules about
> > the station, as well as the SOP and realized that no where did it state
> > that we couldn't call the station a service depot, or what the policy
> > was to become a service depot. SO, I declared it a depot and did the
> > work.
> >
> > I found out years later that the radio station at Ft. Greely was one
> > of the first GI built stations, and later one of the first permanent
> > AFRN radio stations. I could have claimed there was precedent for the
> > staff to do their own repairs. :)
> >
>
> Sometimes someone has to be brazen enough and just do it, then others
> will follow. Once there's a well-trodden path it becomes "the standard".
I've never been one to let a dead or dying piece of electronics taunt
me. It is either repaired properly, or used for spare parts.
> >> After a brief "discussion" I got them to check some records. Turns out
> >> our multiplex truck was the only one that never failed to report being
> >> fully operational when commanded to be, and in record time. And we had
> >> never called the service truck, ever. "Umm, ok, that's impressive. But
> >> make sure we never FIND a solder iron again on your unit, will ya?" ...
> >> "Yes, SIR!", saluted, and went back to business as usual.
> >
> >
> > I had to put up with a station manger with a ham license who thought
> > the TV transmitters were Swan SSB rigs, and a base information officer
> > who despised radio & TV because they gave another way to get the news.
> > Both were always looking for a way to cause me trouble. They soon
> > discovered that a happy general outranks any ticked off officer or NCO.
> >
>
> My luck was that the whole assignment of me leading this multiplex unit
> was already violating the standard operating procedure. Because the SOP
> said that this must be a staff sergeant or higher rank and I was only a
> corporal. So even if we hadn't achieved such a good record, making too
> big a fuss out of this situation would have automatically resulted in
> some egg in the face much higher up.
Try being an E2, and holding an E5 slot. :)
> WRT ham radio I have a license and so did one other guy. The shortwave
> trucks always had a problem getting a link, despite huge antennas and a
> 5kW generator. So one day when we were next to them and the other guy
> was next to their SW station, and they couldn't get it done, we fired up
> out transceivers that we had brought along, clandestinely of course ...
> <whistle>
>
> Long story short we could immediately establish a connection on 80m,
> voice and CW. With a piece of wire thrown into a tree while they had two
> full-fledged masts. AFAICT the reason why the army issue gear didn't
> work well was that it really consisted of antiques compared to ham radio
> gear.
You don't peak tune a TV video transmitter like you do a audio SSB
rig. It requires careful alignment of multiple stages to get a flat
video response. If it isn't, the sync is either compressed or it swamps
the video. The idiot screwed up his TV at his on base housing, then
screwed up the transmitter so his set didn't have a vertical roll. He
was on the phone asking his wife, 'Is it OK now?" while he screwed up
every adjustment on the transmitter. It took me over a week to do a
full alignment. Even the interstage coupling loops were out of
mechanical alignment. All he knew about ham radio was yelling, "DO YOU
COPY ME?" He believed that the more modulation, the further the signal
would travel. He was a 20+ year lifer who started as an Army cook,
then took OJT for pole climber. Then he signed up for the
correspondence course for broadcast engineer and got someone else to
take the test. There was no way he passed that course on his own. He
didn't even understand how to use Ohm's Law.
mpm
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aw, that's nothing.
Remind me to tell you the story of W???'s chief engineer.
He just got this new 60kW Varian TVT and was so impressed it could run
110% of rated power.....
"Look, I'll show you." POOF!!
This is the same guy who tried to align a less than 2-mile 7GHz
microwave shot with a flashlight.
I am not kidding. (He installed the circulator backwards.)
Note: I'll protect his name, station and what's left of his
reputation, which surely has improved since then..?
David L. Jones
> Hi,
>
>>> So, my questions to the seasoned engineers:
>>> PhD for electronics: even bother?
>> Generally no, it's a hinderance for the majority of practical
>> industry jobs. You could however always leave it completely off your
>> Resume for some jobs...
>
> Ok, thanks for your opinion there.
> But just out of curiosity (and since David Eather mentioned it, too):
> Wouldn't leaving it off a resume look pretty weird? And after all, I'd
> imagine the prospective employer inquire about that 3-year gap, so
> "hiding" won't really work ;)
You'd be surprised.
Right after you finished it, yeah, maybe. But in 5 or 10 years time most
won't give a toss if you took a few years off to do whatever. All they care
about is what have you done recently. But the real world does work in
mysterious ways!
You are just as likely to get rejected for a job because they didn't like
the way you said Hello or whatever.
When it comes down to it, if you are honest with people that you want to do
practical work, and you have demonstrated practical work experience, then
the PhD shouldn't in theory be an issue.
> PS: Looking forward to your EEVblog live show later - good luck with
> that!
No such luck, it was an epic FAIL, but at least it was damn funny I've
heard!
Dave.
--
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com
David L. Jones
> Hi,
>
>> You will probably never get
>> another opportunity and you will certainly never get a better
>> opportunity.
>
> That's the exact reason why I'm having a hard time just saying "no
> thanks": The offer is just so juicy, and it's really an unique
> opportunity.
So take it.
If you really want to get into practical design work then too much paper, or
too little paper will never be a barrier, your skills are your only barrier.
>> 50 year ago a certificate was a "good" qualification and you could
>> get a job almost anywhere, 30 years ago a diploma was "good" but
>> it's not now, in another 10 - 20 years an undergrad degree will not
>> be as any where near as valuable as it once was.
>
> True.
>
>> If you don't have the paper you won't get through
>> the door, regardless of how skilled you are. The practical
>> experience is invaluable to you - but note well the order in which
>> things happen - If you don't have the paper you won't get through
>> the door, regardless of how skilled you are.
>
> Point taken, especially with respect to the "devaluation" of
> qualifications you mentioned before.
> But I'm wondering: If there is an employer who is really keen that all
> applicants have the right paper, surely this could work against higher
> qualifications, too?
Correct. There are many employers who will only hire people who just meet
the criteria and nothing more.
And it's often not about pay. You might be a PhD that will accept whatever
pay they offer, but you might not stick around. The same is true for people
who aren't married, have no house to pay off, have no kids etc.
Many employers can be very picky about potential employee retention, and
rightly so, it costs lots of money to hire and then replace people when they
leave.
There is no black and white answer here, the real world works in (often
confusing) shades of grey.
David L. Jones
I can second what Tim said, that PhD impresses non-engineers.
The flip side of course is that it usually does NOT impress engineers who
stereotypically look down upon PhD's as lacking practical real world skills
and focus.
i.e. "you spent 3 years writing one paper?, I need this circuit designed and
built by tomorrow with parts you can scrounge, and I want that with the
documentation!"
So if you do find yourself being interviewed by a practical degree or lesser
qualified engineer you might find it hard going with a PhD.
And as someone else said, likewise (and even more so) sterotypically PhD's
will look down upon those of lesser qualifications. So heaven forbid if you
only have a Diploma or Degree and are interviewed by a couple of PhD's.
Life shouldn't be this complicated though, you are young and free, and
you've been offered a great opportunity in tough times, take it!
Nial Stewart
> those of lesser qualifications.
Bob, if you do end up going for the PhD bear in mind what Dave's said here and
don't fall into the trap.
Two of the best engineers I've come across in 15 years didn't go through university.
Nial.
George Herold
> Hi everyone,
>
> Just wondering if the experienced engineers in the "real world" could
> help me out a little with this:
>
> I'm about to finish my BEng in Electronic Engineering (UK degree), and
> last week an academic from my university offered me a fully funded
> (tuition fees + living expenses) PhD in analog IC design. Great, I
> thought, a free PhD, working with a bunch of great people, in an area
> that interest me, at one of the top universities in the country.
>
> BUT:
> for that matter. In fact, I have always been more of a hands-on guy,
> doing electronics as a hobby for quite a while now. For after uni, I was
> hoping to land a job as an electronics design engineer (hence posting
> here), because I think I might enjoy actually making stuff that sees use
> in the real world.
>
> Now, I have doubts if a PhD will do me any good for that kind of career
> goal. First, I'm not sure whether employers for "normal" electronics R&D
> jobs even want PhDs - I'm assuming a bachelor's or master's degree with
> work experience would be more appreciated. Then, there is also this
> smell of a highly specialized theoretician that a PhD carries (hence why
> I haven't considered doing one so far). Although I'm wondering if my
> electronics hobby could show that I am actually someone who knows about
> "real world" electronics. Though I might just have illusions about how
> electronic engineering actually is "out there"...
>
> An alternative would be to spend another year on a taught MSc
> (coursework on MSc level, but no strong research component), to just get
> a more specialized education, without the ivory tower appeal of a PhD.
>
> I also have this job with a 2-man shop lined up where I could work for
> one year pretty much doing electronics design on my own, just to get a
> nice portfolio to show off when applying for a "real" company afterwards.
>
> It's probably just worth mentioning that I don't really intend to settle
> down in the UK, so it would be interesting how this issue is viewed
> somewhere else.
>
> PhD for electronics: even bother?
> Or would you rather recommend just getting a "quick" MSc?
> Or not bother with further education at all, and just dive straight into
> the real word?
> Any other suggestions?
>
> I am looking forward to your comments!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Robert
Hi Bob, My two cents worth. I took a similar offer to work in a
physics lab. I had a great time and don't regret a thing. If you are
not married with kids and so don't need the money, then you can follow
your heart. A few words of warning if you decide on the PhD option.
Make sure you like the professor you will work with/for, and does he/
she get a lot of funding? The worst thing is to have the grant go
away in the middle of your work. And talk with some other past
students who worked with the professor. Is three years for a PhD
really accurate? There are professors who have been know to keep good
people around for longer so they can get more work out of them... A
PhD advisor is much more than your boss.
George H.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
a) Get your PhD - the alternative in the UK right now is probably
unemployment
b) Then get out of the UK. There are only two places in the West where a
good variety of design is still being done, and which pays. Germany and USA
c) Get out of the UK while you can.
d) Get out of the UK while you can.
e) If all else fails become a banker - they have the money.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>
> Depends on to what you aspire. I have no PhD (though like you I was
> offered one based on my final year project) and graduated in 73 from
> Nottingham. I worked for a few companies that mainly employed engineers
University? I started there 1971, physics.
Lincoln hall
Bob
> a) Get your PhD - the alternative in the UK right now is probably
> unemployment
> b) Then get out of the UK. There are only two places in the West where a
> good variety of design is still being done, and which pays. Germany and USA
> c) Get out of the UK while you can.
> d) Get out of the UK while you can.
> e) If all else fails become a banker - they have the money.
Haha! Yes, advices b-d seem quite sensible! :)
Cheers,
Robert
Bob
Yep. That's why I really appreciate *all* of the comments I've gotten
here. Just talking to the academics at uni doesn't really give a good
picture, especially if that's not where I ultimately want to end up.
Thanks to everyone! You really helped a big deal!
Cheers,
Robert
Joerg
IF b = US
THEN e = lawyer
ELSE e = husband of rich woman or get plum bureaucrat job in Brussels
--
SCNR, Joerg
Rich Grise on Google groups
> I'm about to finish my BEng in Electronic Engineering (UK degree), and
> last week an academic from my university offered me a fully funded
> (tuition fees + living expenses) PhD in analog IC design. Great, I
> thought, a free PhD, working with a bunch of great people, in an area
> that interest me, at one of the top universities in the country.
>
> BUT:
> I am not really aiming for a career in academia, or full-on research,
> for that matter. In fact, I have always been more of a hands-on guy,
Haven't you ever seen "The Big Bang Theory?" Of COURSE Take the
Free Ride! Are you an idiot? Get a lab, and just order whatever bench
stuff you need to play with. Nobody knows what PHDs do anyway,
so it's freakin' gravy, dude!
Take it, and let the details work themselves out.
But try not to be Sheldon. ;-P
Good Luck!
Rich
Bob Eld
"Bob" <etswy...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:htat5e$1mhk$1...@news.ett.com.ua...
> Hi everyone,
>
> Just wondering if the experienced engineers in the "real world" could
> help me out a little with this:
>
> last week an academic from my university offered me a fully funded
> (tuition fees + living expenses) PhD in analog IC design. Great, I
> thought, a free PhD, working with a bunch of great people, in an area
> that interest me, at one of the top universities in the country.
>
> BUT:
> I am not really aiming for a career in academia, or full-on research,
> for that matter. In fact, I have always been more of a hands-on guy,
Get the PhD given the opportunity you describe and assuming you can afford
it. You'll never regret it. It will be invaluable for your career path
especially as you gain experience and work beyond being just another grunt
engineer. It will open doors and give you clout and prestige in your
profession. That is especially true if you move on into management or
company ownership. It will assist in areas you don't even think about today
such as raising capital to start a business or fund a project. You can't be
too educated. When a doctor speaks, people listen. Get the degree and use it
wisely.
Jon
"Bob Eld" <nsmon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:htjb89$6cr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
JosephKK
wrote:
>On 23/05/2010 7:39 PM, Bob wrote:
>Don't be a dickhead - Do the PhD. The only people who will say you don't
>need a PhD are people who don't have one. You will probably never get
>another opportunity and you will certainly never get a better
>opportunity. A PhD will open a vast range of doors that an undergrad
>degree won't and many doors a Master's won't. If for a particular reason
>it might be a hindrance than you can leave it out of the resume, but
>those cases will be rare and will also becoming rarer.
>
>50 year ago a certificate was a "good" qualification and you could get a
>job almost anywhere, 30 years ago a diploma was "good" but it's not now,
>in another 10 - 20 years an undergrad degree will not be as any where
>near as valuable as it once was. The world-wide emphasis in business now
>is to employ qualifications to ensure compliance to regulations. That
>won't change unless all the worlds lawyers, politicians, bureaucrats and
>lawsuits disappear. If you don't have the paper you won't get through
>the door, regardless of how skilled you are. The practical experience is
>invaluable to you - but note well the order in which things happen - If
>you don't have the paper you won't get through the door, regardless of
>how skilled you are.
That is not entirely true. As little as 20 years ago i was asked to be a
non-degreed supervisor of degreed engineers. I was stupid and did not
take it. I had been bad mouthing local non-degreed engineers supervising
degreed engineers for (what i thought were) good reasons.
Nowdays in that same workplace there are no non-degreed engineers, but
some techs that completed the BS degree and are now engineers.
I doubt such could happen any more, HR would prevent it.
About that time i counseled a good friend to go for the MS, it made him a
much better engineer and opened many doors for him. As part of that i
helped him learn an electronic CAD tool. He has forgiven me for
requiring that he personally develop such expertise, he has found out
(the hard way) just how valuable it is.
Similarly i had PHD engineering professors that were no good and what
little they did know was 30 years out of date.
There is already moves afoot to make the MS the minimum degree, if we
engineers (who impact society at least as much as Doctors and Lawyers)
want the same professional respect, we must needs demand at least an MS
as the first working level degree. It is coming, prepare accordingly.
Yeah, a bit of drift there.
JosephKK
>On May 23, 9:06 am, Bob <etswyha...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> > You will probably never get
>> > another opportunity and you will certainly never get a better
>> > opportunity.
>>
>> That's the exact reason why I'm having a hard time just saying "no
>> thanks": The offer is just so juicy, and it's really an unique opportunity.
>>
>> > 50 year ago a certificate was a "good" qualification and you could get a
>> > job almost anywhere, 30 years ago a diploma was "good" but it's not now,
>> > in another 10 - 20 years an undergrad degree will not be as any where
>> > near as valuable as it once was.
>>
>> True.
>>
>> > If you don't have the paper you won't get through
>> > the door, regardless of how skilled you are. The practical experience is
>> > invaluable to you - but note well the order in which things happen - If
>> > you don't have the paper you won't get through the door, regardless of
>> > how skilled you are.
>>
>> Point taken, especially with respect to the "devaluation" of
>> qualifications you mentioned before.
>> But I'm wondering: If there is an employer who is really keen that all
>> applicants have the right paper, surely this could work against higher
>> qualifications, too? In other words, if an employer wants to hire
>> someone and believe they need a MSc, why should they hire (and pay for)
>> a PhD? Just wondering...
>>
>> Thanks for your good post!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Robert
>
>One other thing to consider is that over the last couple decades, EE
>careers have morphed into serial job hunting exercises on a per-
>project basis.
>Companies just don't seem too interested in tenured EE's anymore.
>It used to be an EE (of any stripe) was your ticket to a long,
>rewarding career. Not anymore.
>
>Now, (with rare exception) you can expect to be shuffled back and
>forth between companies as their economic well-being flows with the
>tide, and as their product life cycles play out in the market. --
>which life cycles can be exceedingly short these days!! Cell phones
>(and almost anything telecom-related) are good examples. Ditto if
>you're into software. Maybe 5x ditto?
>
>A Ph.D. wouldn't hurt of course, particularly if you can somehow
>manage to start any kind of "part time" gig to at least chip away at
>the experience curve.
>In many fields, employers will often value experience over academia,
>with the exception of certain job functions (many relating to product
>liability, for example, where a Ph.D. pulls additional weight before a
>judge.)
>Another "benefit" of a Ph.D. status is that it will likely shut you
>out of low-paying, low-advancement opportunities you probably wouldn't
>want in the first place.
>An insurance policy of sorts, to keep you from accepting dead-end
>jobs.
>
>In any event, the better letters to put behind your name would be
>P.E., not simply Ph.D.
>I feel that would open up many more doors, and financial rewards for
>you.
>
>-mpm
>
Aye, there is an actual legal difference in the testimony of a P.E.
versus all other comers.
JosephKK
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Typical Guv'ment triple standards. In '71 i chose navy as the least
dishonest way to go, i came back from boot camp to a letter from the
local draft board, telling me to report. I replied, sorry i am already
in the navy.
Michael A. Terrell
JosephKK wrote:
>
> Typical Guv'ment triple standards. In '71 I chose navy as the least
> dishonest way to go, I came back from boot camp to a letter from the
> local draft board, telling me to report. I replied, sorry I am already
> in the navy.
One of the men in my Basic Training Unit got his draft notice mailed
to him at Ft. Knox, addressed to our unit. It was mailed after he was
supposed to report to the local draft board, and told him that if he
didn't surrender to the authorities in the next 24 hours, he would spend
the next three years at Levenworth prison.
I was interested in joining the Air Force when I was drafted, but had
no choice. One would let me join, the other didn't give a damn. At
that time the Air Force had a better electronics school.
Joel Koltner
news:52mb06dm7l4mk7mql...@4ax.com...
>There is already moves afoot to make the MS the minimum degree, if we
>engineers (who impact society at least as much as Doctors and Lawyers)
>want the same professional respect, we must needs demand at least an MS
>as the first working level degree. It is coming, prepare accordingly.
Doesn't it seem like it would make a lot more sense to instead revert the
graduation requirements for BSEEs to something a little more in-depth, as they
were decades back?
While there's no question that for some people there's great value to be had
in an MSEE, in many cases I just don't see that value being equal to, e.g.,
the, say, $25-$50k in tuition/room/board/etc. getting it will incur as well as
losing out on (say) two years of a $30-$50k (entry level) job.
Upper-level formal education strikes me as even less useful for many a
programmer: I knew plenty of bright kids coming out of high school who were
better programmers than many a BSCS graduate I've met. John Carmack only
spent two semesters at college before going freelance, Tim Sweeney was working
on a BSME that he didn't quite finish (although he does credit the math
courses in helping him greatly), and of course everyone knows about Bill
Gates.
Is an MSCS going to become the "new standard" as well? :-(
It's highly disheartening that we're becoming a society where titles are more
important than performance. It's a house of cards that's not at all in the
tradition of what made this country great.
---Joel
Jim Thompson
<zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"JosephKK" <quiett...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:52mb06dm7l4mk7mql...@4ax.com...
>>There is already moves afoot to make the MS the minimum degree, if we
>>engineers (who impact society at least as much as Doctors and Lawyers)
>>want the same professional respect, we must needs demand at least an MS
>>as the first working level degree. It is coming, prepare accordingly.
>
>Doesn't it seem like it would make a lot more sense to instead revert the
>graduation requirements for BSEEs to something a little more in-depth, as they
>were decades back?
What does "in-depth" mean? Once upon a time, MIT taught fundamentals,
so fundamental that I can drop into _any_ electronics technology at
will... tubes, BJT's, CMOS, xMOS, twisty-curly magnetic things...
anything.
Now, it seems, "education" is aimed at things so specific that the
student has no clue about 1" off-path :-(
>
>While there's no question that for some people there's great value to be had
>in an MSEE, in many cases I just don't see that value being equal to, e.g.,
>the, say, $25-$50k in tuition/room/board/etc. getting it will incur as well as
>losing out on (say) two years of a $30-$50k (entry level) job.
>
>Upper-level formal education strikes me as even less useful for many a
>programmer: I knew plenty of bright kids coming out of high school who were
>better programmers than many a BSCS graduate I've met.
My oldest son dropped out of the UofA BSCS program... he was making
more money on the side than graduates :-) He eventually got the
degree because companies tend toward "paper credentials".
[snip]
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
Joel Koltner
message news:f6vc0656fisjha3qc...@4ax.com...
> What does "in-depth" mean?
If nothing else, it means taking a lot of the material that's already been
moved from undergrad.-level classes to grad.-level classes and moving it back
down to the undergraduate level.
Or at least teach whatever it takes such that fewer than, say, one BSEE
graduate in a million fails John's "What's the output of this voltage
divider?" question. (I know, I know, you aren't always that impressed with
his design skills :-), but he's still far above average relative to graduates
today -- he is able to successfully sell the things, after all, to people with
pretty high expectations!)
> Now, it seems, "education" is aimed at things so specific that the
> student has no clue about 1" off-path :-(
Yep.
---Joel
Adrian C
> Hi everyone,
>
> Just wondering if the experienced engineers in the "real world" could
> help me out a little with this:
>
> I'm about to finish my BEng in Electronic Engineering (UK degree), and
> last week an academic from my university offered me a fully funded
> (tuition fees + living expenses) PhD in analog IC design. Great, I
> thought, a free PhD, working with a bunch of great people, in an area
> that interest me, at one of the top universities in the country.
You _have_ to do it. The real world with your current degree in the UK
market is not that disimilar to that for everyone else - and the
competition for some jobs is horrendous.
And you want to get out. You need points to enter some countries. A PhD
will certainly help to do that. BTW learn a foreign language.
Twenty years ago I got the same degree, flunked the last year and came
out in third division. After working in research for a few years as a
technician, became a self taught computer programmer. Now fed up of
working for idiots, I'm heading for survival selling off things on eBay
and probably end up running a coffee shop. My degree now means zilch,
and at 43 I'm now too old to make investing in doing further IT
qualifications worthwhile given the current UK employment situation.
Wish you the best. Go for it!
:-)
--
Adrian C
Joerg
But why is it that I've heard of so many PEs looking for a job, some
rather desperately? Seem it's mostly utilities who hire them, because
they have to for certain jobs. Civil engineering PEs all seem to have a
job, electrical not so much.
--
Regards, Joerg
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>JosephKK wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:01:05 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Aye, there is an actual legal difference in the testimony of a P.E.
>> versus all other comers.
Nonsense.
>
>
>But why is it that I've heard of so many PEs looking for a job, some
>rather desperately? Seem it's mostly utilities who hire them, because
>they have to for certain jobs. Civil engineering PEs all seem to have a
>job, electrical not so much.
It's pretty much useless except for _public_ practice, such as
architects, and related civil engineering.
Spehro Pefhany
wrote:
>JosephKK wrote:
With a P.E. (P.Eng in Canada) a license is granted by a professional
organization wot can discipline the practicioner if we are found to
violate the written code of ethics or are incompetent. The actual
practice of professional engineering (according to some reasonable
definitions and with some given exclusions) may be limited to members
of the organization. Much as with other professions such as medicine
and law.
It's obviously not a substitute for knowledge and experience, and
isn't all that required outside of certain industries (aerospace,
utilities etc.). Generally if a mistake can result in personal injury
or death it's more likely to be required. The requirements in Ontario
are to have met confirmed education (at least a 4-year degree, IIRC)
and experience requirements (some years working under a licensed
engineer) and to pass a written exam covering both law and ethics.
If you don't have skills that are in demand, it won't make a lick of
difference, IMO.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany, P.Eng PMP
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> On 23/05/2010 10:39, Bob wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Just wondering if the experienced engineers in the "real world" could
>> help me out a little with this:
>>
>> I'm about to finish my BEng in Electronic Engineering (UK degree), and
>> last week an academic from my university offered me a fully funded
>> (tuition fees + living expenses) PhD in analog IC design. Great, I
>> thought, a free PhD, working with a bunch of great people, in an area
>> that interest me, at one of the top universities in the country.
>
> You _have_ to do it. The real world with your current degree in the UK
> market is not that disimilar to that for everyone else - and the
> competition for some jobs is horrendous.
>
> And you want to get out. You need points to enter some countries. A PhD
> will certainly help to do that. BTW learn a foreign language.
German or Mandarin
Joerg
IIRC in the US some states require that registered guys carry PL
insurance. Which you can't get if you do med projects. That alone turns
it what the Romans used to call ad absurdum.
> It's obviously not a substitute for knowledge and experience, and
> isn't all that required outside of certain industries (aerospace,
> utilities etc.). Generally if a mistake can result in personal injury
> or death it's more likely to be required. ...
So, then, why are pretty much none of the automotive engineers licensed?
And aerospace, and medical, and ...
> ... The requirements in Ontario
> are to have met confirmed education (at least a 4-year degree, IIRC)
> and experience requirements (some years working under a licensed
> engineer) and to pass a written exam covering both law and ethics.
> If you don't have skills that are in demand, it won't make a lick of
> difference, IMO.
>
> Best regards,
> Spehro Pefhany, P.Eng PMP
>
Over here in the US the requirements to even be able to sit for the test
are rather onerous, so most people just don't care. Employers sure
don't, except utilities and such. In Europe most countries don't even
have all that license legalese, except to some extent England.
Spehro Pefhany
wrote:
>So, then, why are pretty much none of the automotive engineers licensed?
>And aerospace, and medical, and ...
Most aerospace guys *are*. Anything structural especially.. Don't
know about medical-- they seem to be more interested in how deep the
insurance pockets are than qualifications in my limited experience.
I don't think there is a culture in automotive that puts liability on
the heads of the engineers. In civil and much of mechanical there
certainly is.
>Over here in the US the requirements to even be able to sit for the test
>are rather onerous, so most people just don't care.
Looks like at least some states have a technical content to the exam,
which seems pretty redundant unless they feel they don't have a way of
knowing if the degrees are any good.
>Employers sure
>don't, except utilities and such. In Europe most countries don't even
>have all that license legalese, except to some extent England.
To be completely compliant you'd probably have to maintain licenses in
every jurisdiction in which you have customers, which is pretty
impractical, but in general I think the self-regulating body approach
is the correct one for a profession. These days they're even extending
their tentacles to technicians, which I think is going too far- more
of a money grab, but then companies like Microsoft started it with
their "certification" money-making activities.
Joel Koltner
news:nigd06lfehhf3oh5b...@4ax.com...
> These days they're even extending
> their tentacles to technicians, which I think is going too far- more
> of a money grab, but then companies like Microsoft started it with
> their "certification" money-making activities.
I think that Microsoft/Novell/etc. started their certification programs
originally not so much out of a goal to make money (although it certainly does
do that, now), but rather a recognition that very little you learn in the
course of pursuing a BSCS will help you to set up, e.g., a Windows domain
server with hot-failover along with a RAID array and IIS, Exchange Server,
etc. all running on the thing.
Joerg
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:23:16 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>> So, then, why are pretty much none of the automotive engineers licensed?
>> And aerospace, and medical, and ...
>
EEs there typically aren't. I doubt that the MEs are but next time I can
ask. The typical scenario in many companies that need to stamp stuff is
that they have one PE on staff, and the others aren't.
Also, in med, aero and similar markets just about any design must go
through a myriad of agency tests so the chances for a screw-up are
rather slim.
> ... Don't
> know about medical-- they seem to be more interested in how deep the
> insurance pockets are than qualifications in my limited experience.
>
In the whole 24 years I've never met a PE in medical devices. It would
have been on their business cards.
> I don't think there is a culture in automotive that puts liability on
> the heads of the engineers. In civil and much of mechanical there
> certainly is.
>
>> Over here in the US the requirements to even be able to sit for the test
>> are rather onerous, so most people just don't care.
>
> Looks like at least some states have a technical content to the exam,
> which seems pretty redundant unless they feel they don't have a way of
> knowing if the degrees are any good.
>
But first you must have had a FE test, often come from an ABET-compliant
university (which can in essence be construed as age discrimination),
and have worked 4 years under a PE. Before being allowed the PE exam. If
your main industry (like mine) does not have any PE's that's sort of
impossible. Oh well ...
>> Employers sure
>> don't, except utilities and such. In Europe most countries don't even
>> have all that license legalese, except to some extent England.
>
> To be completely compliant you'd probably have to maintain licenses in
> every jurisdiction in which you have customers, which is pretty
> impractical, but in general I think the self-regulating body approach
> is the correct one for a profession. These days they're even extending
> their tentacles to technicians, which I think is going too far- more
> of a money grab, but then companies like Microsoft started it with
> their "certification" money-making activities.
>
I prefer not to increase the regulatory burden on a profession. Unless
there is hardcore cause, and with engineers that is not the case.
Otherwise no-license places like Europe would have gone up in a fireball
already and they haven't. Why on earth should some bureaucrats decide
who is an engineer and not a university? That never made sense to me,
never will.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:23:16 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>
>>So, then, why are pretty much none of the automotive engineers licensed?
>>And aerospace, and medical, and ...
>
>Most aerospace guys *are*. Anything structural especially.. Don't
>know about medical-- they seem to be more interested in how deep the
>insurance pockets are than qualifications in my limited experience.
>
>I don't think there is a culture in automotive that puts liability on
>the heads of the engineers. In civil and much of mechanical there
>certainly is.
>
>>Over here in the US the requirements to even be able to sit for the test
>>are rather onerous, so most people just don't care.
>
>Looks like at least some states have a technical content to the exam,
>which seems pretty redundant unless they feel they don't have a way of
>knowing if the degrees are any good.
When I graduated the EIT (Engineer in Training) part of the PE exam was
certainly technical but nothing to do with an EE. Most of the topics we
didn't even study, as an EE. Didn't bother and certainly haven't missed it.
>>Employers sure
>>don't, except utilities and such. In Europe most countries don't even
>>have all that license legalese, except to some extent England.
>
>To be completely compliant you'd probably have to maintain licenses in
>every jurisdiction in which you have customers, which is pretty
>impractical, but in general I think the self-regulating body approach
>is the correct one for a profession. These days they're even extending
>their tentacles to technicians, which I think is going too far- more
>of a money grab, but then companies like Microsoft started it with
>their "certification" money-making activities.
You can bet politicians won't leave a source of revenue lay fallow after
someone like M$ shows there is money to be made *without* the force of law.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>Spehro Pefhany wrote:
<snip>
... Don't
>> know about medical-- they seem to be more interested in how deep the
>> insurance pockets are than qualifications in my limited experience.
>>
>
>In the whole 24 years I've never met a PE in medical devices. It would
>have been on their business cards.
"PE in medical devices"? PEs here aren't "in" anything, one of the reasons
the whole concept of the PE is silly.
<snip>
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
I imagine some would like to see these "moves afoot" come to be. It would
simply cheapen the BSEE degree.
>Yeah, a bit of drift there.
How about that AGW?
Joerg
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:55:24 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>
> <snip>
> ... Don't
>>> know about medical-- they seem to be more interested in how deep the
>>> insurance pockets are than qualifications in my limited experience.
>>>
>> In the whole 24 years I've never met a PE in medical devices. It would
>> have been on their business cards.
>
I meant working in the medical device industry. Heck, even at testing
labs I haven't met any.
> ... PEs here aren't "in" anything, one of the reasons
> the whole concept of the PE is silly.
>
I never understood the sense of it. When IEEE wanted to push PE I told
them I'd cancel my membership if they did. Just imagine, a trade
organization being in favor of bringing _more_ bureaucratic burdens on
their own membership. How sick is that? Well, they stopped, so I am
still a member :-)
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:55:24 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> ... Don't
>>>> know about medical-- they seem to be more interested in how deep the
>>>> insurance pockets are than qualifications in my limited experience.
>>>>
>>> In the whole 24 years I've never met a PE in medical devices. It would
>>> have been on their business cards.
>>
>> "PE in medical devices"? ...
>
>
>I meant working in the medical device industry. Heck, even at testing
>labs I haven't met any.
Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry.
>> ... PEs here aren't "in" anything, one of the reasons
>> the whole concept of the PE is silly.
>>
>
>I never understood the sense of it. When IEEE wanted to push PE I told
>them I'd cancel my membership if they did. Just imagine, a trade
>organization being in favor of bringing _more_ bureaucratic burdens on
>their own membership. How sick is that? Well, they stopped, so I am
>still a member :-)
I never joined IEEE because they're run by academics and corporate executives.
Hardly two groups who have the same economic goals of the working engineer.
Joerg
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:55:11 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
[...]
>>> ... PEs here aren't "in" anything, one of the reasons
>>> the whole concept of the PE is silly.
>>>
>> I never understood the sense of it. When IEEE wanted to push PE I told
>> them I'd cancel my membership if they did. Just imagine, a trade
>> organization being in favor of bringing _more_ bureaucratic burdens on
>> their own membership. How sick is that? Well, they stopped, so I am
>> still a member :-)
>
> I never joined IEEE because they're run by academics and corporate executives.
> Hardly two groups who have the same economic goals of the working engineer.
It's become a bit better, but only a little. I am a member because it
looks good for a self-employed person, mainly since that indicates that
you are bound by their code of ethics. Plus IEEE gave me just about the
shortest and easiest to remember email address one can have because I
signed up early for their alias service. Other than that I don't see
much value right now.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:55:11 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>> ... PEs here aren't "in" anything, one of the reasons
>>>> the whole concept of the PE is silly.
>>>>
>>> I never understood the sense of it. When IEEE wanted to push PE I told
>>> them I'd cancel my membership if they did. Just imagine, a trade
>>> organization being in favor of bringing _more_ bureaucratic burdens on
>>> their own membership. How sick is that? Well, they stopped, so I am
>>> still a member :-)
>>
>> I never joined IEEE because they're run by academics and corporate executives.
>> Hardly two groups who have the same economic goals of the working engineer.
>
>
>It's become a bit better, but only a little. I am a member because it
>looks good for a self-employed person, mainly since that indicates that
>you are bound by their code of ethics. Plus IEEE gave me just about the
>shortest and easiest to remember email address one can have because I
>signed up early for their alias service. Other than that I don't see
>much value right now.
Mine isn't short enough? ;-)
Joerg
Mine is longer :-)
Only by one letter though, and has the easier to remember .org domain.
--
SCNR, Joerg
Michael A. Terrell
Along with that crappy A+ certification. A friend that owned a
computer store tried hiring only people with A+ certification, then
discovered just how ignorant they were. They could answer any question
in the study guides, but they couldn't fix a computer without help. The
guy I picked up that old Dell server from the other day told me that he
had to re-test, after that 'Certification for life' expired. He laughed
and said, "the test only covered a two week span of computer &
networking technology".
JosephKK
In the US the P.E. exam covers the basics of the field (electrical /
civil / mechanical). If you pass that you get a do an at home with crib
sheet (provided in some states) "test" that covers the law and ethics.
At least back when i got mine that was the way it worked.
JosephKK
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:23:16 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>
>>So, then, why are pretty much none of the automotive engineers licensed?
>>And aerospace, and medical, and ...
>
>Most aerospace guys *are*. Anything structural especially.. Don't
>know about medical-- they seem to be more interested in how deep the
>insurance pockets are than qualifications in my limited experience.
>
>I don't think there is a culture in automotive that puts liability on
>the heads of the engineers. In civil and much of mechanical there
>certainly is.
>
>>Over here in the US the requirements to even be able to sit for the test
>>are rather onerous, so most people just don't care.
Golly, BS degree and 2 years qualifying experience is onerous???
>
>Looks like at least some states have a technical content to the exam,
>which seems pretty redundant unless they feel they don't have a way of
>knowing if the degrees are any good.
Across the US most if not all states use the NCEES test materials and it
is pretty much all technical, but sophomore and junior year stuff. Canada
may use NCEES as well.
>
>>Employers sure
>>don't, except utilities and such. In Europe most countries don't even
>>have all that license legalese, except to some extent England.
>
>To be completely compliant you'd probably have to maintain licenses in
>every jurisdiction in which you have customers, which is pretty
>impractical, but in general I think the self-regulating body approach
>is the correct one for a profession. These days they're even extending
>their tentacles to technicians, which I think is going too far- more
>of a money grab, but then companies like Microsoft started it with
>their "certification" money-making activities.
No, IBM was doing it before Gates was born. All the Unix vendors and
Novell copied it before M$ did.
JosephKK
<zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"JosephKK" <quiett...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:52mb06dm7l4mk7mql...@4ax.com...
>>There is already moves afoot to make the MS the minimum degree, if we
>>engineers (who impact society at least as much as Doctors and Lawyers)
>>want the same professional respect, we must needs demand at least an MS
>>as the first working level degree. It is coming, prepare accordingly.
>
>Doesn't it seem like it would make a lot more sense to instead revert the
>graduation requirements for BSEEs to something a little more in-depth, as they
>were decades back?
>
>While there's no question that for some people there's great value to be had
>in an MSEE, in many cases I just don't see that value being equal to, e.g.,
>the, say, $25-$50k in tuition/room/board/etc. getting it will incur as well as
>losing out on (say) two years of a $30-$50k (entry level) job.
You do not have to piss away that much money, since i happen to be in
California i can get one from CSU instead, for a fraction of that price,
nor would i have to give up my high paying job, it would just take
longer.
>
>Upper-level formal education strikes me as even less useful for many a
>programmer: I knew plenty of bright kids coming out of high school who were
>better programmers than many a BSCS graduate I've met. John Carmack only
>spent two semesters at college before going freelance, Tim Sweeney was working
>on a BSME that he didn't quite finish (although he does credit the math
>courses in helping him greatly), and of course everyone knows about Bill
>Gates.
>
>Is an MSCS going to become the "new standard" as well? :-(
>
>It's highly disheartening that we're becoming a society where titles are more
>important than performance. It's a house of cards that's not at all in the
>tradition of what made this country great.
>
>---Joel
I do not see this change as incorporating the CS arena; strictly
engineers. Remember the "CS" study has the word "science" in it;
therefore it is not one.
JosephKK
It is largely driver by certifiable idiots that have BSEE and PE. I can
introduce you if you want to meet some.
>
>>Yeah, a bit of drift there.
>
>How about that AGW?
Right there with flat earth.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
...and your plan would solve this how?
Spehro Pefhany
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>I never understood the sense of it. When IEEE wanted to push PE I told
>them I'd cancel my membership if they did. Just imagine, a trade
>organization being in favor of bringing _more_ bureaucratic burdens on
>their own membership. How sick is that?
What "bureaucratic burdens"? It's simply a one-time entry barrier,
plus a small annual overhead, unless you screw up fairly badly. Unless
there are entry barriers you don't really have a profession. It would
be like programmers rather than doctors or lawyers. Anyone can call
himself or herself a programmer, not everyone can legally call
themselves a doctor, lawyer or professional engineer.
>Well, they stopped, so I am still a member :-)
What's the benefit in it? Cheaper group insurance? Another magazine to
skim in the john?
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Spehro Pefhany
"JosephKK"<quiett...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:01:34 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
><spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:23:16 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So, then, why are pretty much none of the automotive engineers licensed?
>>>And aerospace, and medical, and ...
>>
>>Most aerospace guys *are*. Anything structural especially.. Don't
>>know about medical-- they seem to be more interested in how deep the
>>insurance pockets are than qualifications in my limited experience.
>>
>>I don't think there is a culture in automotive that puts liability on
>>the heads of the engineers. In civil and much of mechanical there
>>certainly is.
>>
>>>Over here in the US the requirements to even be able to sit for the test
>>>are rather onerous, so most people just don't care.
>
>Golly, BS degree and 2 years qualifying experience is onerous???
You also have to have a "good character". ;-)
>>Looks like at least some states have a technical content to the exam,
>>which seems pretty redundant unless they feel they don't have a way of
>>knowing if the degrees are any good.
>
>Across the US most if not all states use the NCEES test materials and it
>is pretty much all technical, but sophomore and junior year stuff. Canada
>may use NCEES as well.
No, Ontario candidates who have accredited (by the CEAB, a branch of
the PEO) education don't need to be retested on technical matters. But
they're quite serious about the law and ethics exam.
Actually as this is a self-regulating profession (with a bit of
legislation to give teeth to the enforcement folks) the bureacracy is
not too bad.
Joel Koltner
>You do not have to piss away that much money, since i happen to be in
>California i can get one from CSU instead, for a fraction of that price,
>nor would i have to give up my high paying job, it would just take
>longer.
If you can get your employer to pay for your MSEE -- and Keith and I both did
:-) -- then the balance absolutely tips into the "clearly worth doing" side of
things. :-)
It might not have been the best possible investment for my employer's money,
but I'd say it was at least one of average payback.
---Joel
Jim Thompson
Actually one of the reasons I chose Motorola right out of school. They
had a "Training Program" where you circulated thru the various
departments and learned ALL the steps at making I/C's AND got an MSEE,
on their dime, AND on their paid time :-)
Joel Koltner
message news:n0pf069r2nuhem9gg...@4ax.com...
> Actually one of the reasons I chose Motorola right out of school. They
> had a "Training Program" where you circulated thru the various
> departments and learned ALL the steps at making I/C's AND got an MSEE,
> on their dime, AND on their paid time :-)
I wonder if there are any companies still doing that? I'd be surprised if
Motorola themselves still were -- AFAIK they don't even do much IC design
anymore (and they surely don't have any of their own foundries left? --
although that's no longer particularly significant, I suppose).
Oh, wait... I guess the "IC design" part of Motorola is now Freescale and
OnSemi... (strange the Freescale has the RF bits, though...)
Tim Wescott
FreeFall got all of the "good" stuff, including the high-end RF.
On got the "commodity" stuff -- which included quite a lot of good
jellybean parts, so they're certainly not to be sneezed at.
--
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com
Jim Thompson
This was 48 years ago.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
<zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"JosephKK" <quiett...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:emae06dorkf9td13b...@4ax.com...
>>You do not have to piss away that much money, since i happen to be in
>>California i can get one from CSU instead, for a fraction of that price,
>>nor would i have to give up my high paying job, it would just take
>>longer.
>
>If you can get your employer to pay for your MSEE -- and Keith and I both did
>:-) -- then the balance absolutely tips into the "clearly worth doing" side of
>things. :-)
They paid, but I didn't finish. The classes were *really* bad (recycled profs
they didn't want teaching the "real" students).
>It might not have been the best possible investment for my employer's money,
>but I'd say it was at least one of average payback.
(0 + 0)/2 = 0
Joel Koltner
news:8jag06luc6q5ij1sc...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 10:02:57 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
> <zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>If you can get your employer to pay for your MSEE -- and Keith and I both
>>did
>>:-) -- then the balance absolutely tips into the "clearly worth doing" side
>>of
>>things. :-)
> They paid, but I didn't finish. The classes were *really* bad (recycled
> profs
> they didn't want teaching the "real" students).
My classes were generally good, although I chose poorly when it came time to
write a thesis -- took me three years after finishing my coursework to finally
finish writing it. 90+% of anything useful I contributed to my employer came
from the coursework and not my thesis, though. (I did end up learning Matlab
scripting quite well...)
My professor had a history of students leaving before finishing their
theses -- some people were clocking in at five years post-coursework to finish
them, which I figure is about the upper limit before anyone would just say,
"forget it." I did throw a bone to the professor and in my last e-mail to our
research group suggested that they really, really ought to finish before
leaving -- it really sucks to have that one last unfinished commitment hanging
over your head for such a long time.
>>It might not have been the best possible investment for my employer's money,
>>but I'd say it was at least one of average payback.
> (0 + 0)/2 = 0
Yep... :-)
---Joel
Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 10:02:57 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
><zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"JosephKK" <quiett...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:emae06dorkf9td13b...@4ax.com...
>>>You do not have to piss away that much money, since i happen to be in
>>>California i can get one from CSU instead, for a fraction of that price,
>>>nor would i have to give up my high paying job, it would just take
>>>longer.
>>
>>If you can get your employer to pay for your MSEE -- and Keith and I both did
>>:-) -- then the balance absolutely tips into the "clearly worth doing" side of
>>things. :-)
>>
>>It might not have been the best possible investment for my employer's money,
>>but I'd say it was at least one of average payback.
>>
>>---Joel
>
>Actually one of the reasons I chose Motorola right out of school. They
>had a "Training Program" where you circulated thru the various
>departments and learned ALL the steps at making I/C's AND got an MSEE,
>on their dime, AND on their paid time :-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Finally tracked him down: S.C.Gupta was my MSEE thesis advisor...
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a771648022&db=all
JosephKK
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
I never said that plan would do a lick of good. Just that some wanted to
go that way. And it looks inevitable (IEEE would like it).
I have a different idea, quit giving away BSEEs to innumerate illiterates
who would not be caught dead with a soldering iron or a screwdriver and
cannot operate an oscilloscope.
Joerg
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:55:11 -0700, the renowned Joerg
> <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> I never understood the sense of it. When IEEE wanted to push PE I told
>> them I'd cancel my membership if they did. Just imagine, a trade
>> organization being in favor of bringing _more_ bureaucratic burdens on
>> their own membership. How sick is that?
>
> What "bureaucratic burdens"? It's simply a one-time entry barrier,
> plus a small annual overhead, unless you screw up fairly badly. Unless
> there are entry barriers you don't really have a profession. It would
> be like programmers rather than doctors or lawyers. Anyone can call
> himself or herself a programmer, not everyone can legally call
> themselves a doctor, lawyer or professional engineer.
>
As I've mentioned: Many license boards require two things. First,
university course work must be ABET, not the case for most older folks
or people who studied overseas. 2nd, they often require you to have
worked under the supervision of a PE for typically 4 years minimum. In
medical there aren't any PEs, hence ...
The entry barrier is the university. IMHO professors are the ones who
shall decide who is fit to be an engineer, not some bureaucrats who
don't even know how to draw up a simple diff-amp. At my alma mater about
83% of the guys I started out with failed to make it through to the
masters. I guess that's enough of a barrier, ain't it?
>> Well, they stopped, so I am still a member :-)
>
> What's the benefit in it? Cheaper group insurance? Another magazine to
> skim in the john?
>
I ask myself that every year. Group insurance isn't worth spit right
now, IMHO. Spectrum is often really good, and so are some society
papers. For example, even if it's rare I do sometimes need access to the
latest and greatest in ultrasound, and without membership that would
cost beaucoup bucks (more than the dues). The other upside is that it
adds to my credibility in front of new clients, mainly because I am
bound by the IEEE Code of Ethics and by that of VDE (also member there).
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:55:11 -0700, the renowned Joerg
>> <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I never understood the sense of it. When IEEE wanted to push PE I told
>>> them I'd cancel my membership if they did. Just imagine, a trade
>>> organization being in favor of bringing _more_ bureaucratic burdens on
>>> their own membership. How sick is that?
>>
>> What "bureaucratic burdens"? It's simply a one-time entry barrier,
>> plus a small annual overhead, unless you screw up fairly badly. Unless
>> there are entry barriers you don't really have a profession. It would
>> be like programmers rather than doctors or lawyers. Anyone can call
>> himself or herself a programmer, not everyone can legally call
>> themselves a doctor, lawyer or professional engineer.
>>
>
>As I've mentioned: Many license boards require two things. First,
>university course work must be ABET, not the case for most older folks
>or people who studied overseas. 2nd, they often require you to have
>worked under the supervision of a PE for typically 4 years minimum. In
>medical there aren't any PEs, hence ...
>
>The entry barrier is the university. IMHO professors are the ones who
>shall decide who is fit to be an engineer, not some bureaucrats who
>don't even know how to draw up a simple diff-amp. At my alma mater about
>83% of the guys I started out with failed to make it through to the
>masters. I guess that's enough of a barrier, ain't it?
They flunked out something like 20-25% each year in the first two years. After
that, it was almost unheard of to flunk out in the major coursework. I doubt
anyone flunked out of the masters program. I'm sure many didn't make it,
mainly because of the thesis requirement. The masters program I started
didn't even require a thesis. Two courses (30 credits, rather than 24) could
be substituted. Most of the working engineers did a project and used their
work projects. Like I said, it was a joke.
>>> Well, they stopped, so I am still a member :-)
>>
>> What's the benefit in it? Cheaper group insurance? Another magazine to
>> skim in the john?
>>
>
>I ask myself that every year. Group insurance isn't worth spit right
>now, IMHO. Spectrum is often really good, and so are some society
>papers. For example, even if it's rare I do sometimes need access to the
>latest and greatest in ultrasound, and without membership that would
>cost beaucoup bucks (more than the dues). The other upside is that it
>adds to my credibility in front of new clients, mainly because I am
>bound by the IEEE Code of Ethics and by that of VDE (also member there).
Obama swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, too.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Ok, it looked like you were supporting this silly idea.
>I have a different idea, quit giving away BSEEs to innumerate illiterates
That would be my choice, too.
>who would not be caught dead with a soldering iron or a screwdriver and
>cannot operate an oscilloscope.
There are a *lot* of engineers who will never touch a soldering iron or
oscilloscope. Most, I would think, would open a can of paint at some time in
their lives, though. ;-)
Spehro Pefhany
"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>There are a *lot* of engineers who will never touch a soldering iron or
>oscilloscope. Most, I would think, would open a can of paint at some time in
>their lives, though. ;-)
Or perhaps nail polish.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:49:44 -0500, the renowned
>"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>
>>There are a *lot* of engineers who will never touch a soldering iron or
>>oscilloscope. Most, I would think, would open a can of paint at some time in
>>their lives, though. ;-)
>
>Or perhaps nail polish.
Do you open nail polish with a soldering iron or a screwdriver?
Joerg
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 20:58:53 -0700, the renowned
> "JosephKK"<quiett...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:01:34 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
>> <spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:23:16 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, then, why are pretty much none of the automotive engineers licensed?
>>>> And aerospace, and medical, and ...
>>> Most aerospace guys *are*. Anything structural especially.. Don't
>>> know about medical-- they seem to be more interested in how deep the
>>> insurance pockets are than qualifications in my limited experience.
>>>
>>> I don't think there is a culture in automotive that puts liability on
>>> the heads of the engineers. In civil and much of mechanical there
>>> certainly is.
>>>
>>>> Over here in the US the requirements to even be able to sit for the test
>>>> are rather onerous, so most people just don't care.
>> Golly, BS degree and 2 years qualifying experience is onerous???
>
I repeat:
http://www.ncees.org/Licensure/Licensure_for_engineers.php
Quote: "Earn a degree from an ABET-accredited engineering program." That
alone is a joke and also de-facto age discrimination.
Quote: "Gain acceptable work experience (typically a minimum of four
years). In most cases, this must be completed under the supervision of a
P.E." Which, for example, in my case is impossible because there are no
PEs in the industries I work. Certainly never met one in medical and
that's now 24 years and counting.
> You also have to have a "good character". ;-)
>
One expression that made me chuckle was "... must not have committed
acts of moral turpitude" :-)
>>> Looks like at least some states have a technical content to the exam,
>>> which seems pretty redundant unless they feel they don't have a way of
>>> knowing if the degrees are any good.
>> Across the US most if not all states use the NCEES test materials and it
>> is pretty much all technical, but sophomore and junior year stuff. Canada
>> may use NCEES as well.
>
> No, Ontario candidates who have accredited (by the CEAB, a branch of
> the PEO) education don't need to be retested on technical matters. But
> they're quite serious about the law and ethics exam.
>
> Actually as this is a self-regulating profession (with a bit of
> legislation to give teeth to the enforcement folks) the bureacracy is
> not too bad.
>
My first encounter with a PE (civil engineer) resulted in me (!) finding
a bug in his calcs and rationale ...
Spehro Pefhany
"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:51:07 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
><spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:49:44 -0500, the renowned
>>"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There are a *lot* of engineers who will never touch a soldering iron or
>>>oscilloscope. Most, I would think, would open a can of paint at some time in
>>>their lives, though. ;-)
>>
>>Or perhaps nail polish.
>
>Do you open nail polish with a soldering iron or a screwdriver?
I have used it to glue trimpots. ;-)
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:47:56 -0500, the renowned
>"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:51:07 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
>><spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:49:44 -0500, the renowned
>>>"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>There are a *lot* of engineers who will never touch a soldering iron or
>>>>oscilloscope. Most, I would think, would open a can of paint at some time in
>>>>their lives, though. ;-)
>>>
>>>Or perhaps nail polish.
>>
>>Do you open nail polish with a soldering iron or a screwdriver?
>
>I have used it to glue trimpots. ;-)
Yeah, sure. Yep, trimpots, that's the ticket. ;-)
Michael A. Terrell
"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
>
> Obama swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, too.
Yes, but he never said he wouldn't rip it up and burn it before he
put the ashes in an urn.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
>>
>> Obama swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, too.
>
>
> Yes, but he never said he wouldn't rip it up and burn it before he
>put the ashes in an urn.
That interpretation of "preserve, protect and defend" makes as much sense as
anything else the moron has done.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 20:58:53 -0700, the renowned
>> "JosephKK"<quiett...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:01:34 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
>>> <spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:23:16 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So, then, why are pretty much none of the automotive engineers licensed?
>>>>> And aerospace, and medical, and ...
>>>> Most aerospace guys *are*. Anything structural especially.. Don't
>>>> know about medical-- they seem to be more interested in how deep the
>>>> insurance pockets are than qualifications in my limited experience.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think there is a culture in automotive that puts liability on
>>>> the heads of the engineers. In civil and much of mechanical there
>>>> certainly is.
>>>>
>>>>> Over here in the US the requirements to even be able to sit for the test
>>>>> are rather onerous, so most people just don't care.
>>> Golly, BS degree and 2 years qualifying experience is onerous???
>>
>
>I repeat:
>
>http://www.ncees.org/Licensure/Licensure_for_engineers.php
>
>Quote: "Earn a degree from an ABET-accredited engineering program." That
>alone is a joke and also de-facto age discrimination.
How so?
>Quote: "Gain acceptable work experience (typically a minimum of four
>years). In most cases, this must be completed under the supervision of a
>P.E." Which, for example, in my case is impossible because there are no
>PEs in the industries I work. Certainly never met one in medical and
>that's now 24 years and counting.
If there are no PEs in the industry, obviously the shingle isn't of much use.
I've worked around PEs all my career. The only use the shingle had was to put
some pompous letter behind their name on a business card. Might just as well
put "A+" after their name, though.
>> You also have to have a "good character". ;-)
>>
>
>One expression that made me chuckle was "... must not have committed
>acts of moral turpitude" :-)
Rats!
>>>> Looks like at least some states have a technical content to the exam,
>>>> which seems pretty redundant unless they feel they don't have a way of
>>>> knowing if the degrees are any good.
>>> Across the US most if not all states use the NCEES test materials and it
>>> is pretty much all technical, but sophomore and junior year stuff. Canada
>>> may use NCEES as well.
>>
>> No, Ontario candidates who have accredited (by the CEAB, a branch of
>> the PEO) education don't need to be retested on technical matters. But
>> they're quite serious about the law and ethics exam.
>>
>> Actually as this is a self-regulating profession (with a bit of
>> legislation to give teeth to the enforcement folks) the bureacracy is
>> not too bad.
>>
>
>My first encounter with a PE (civil engineer) resulted in me (!) finding
>a bug in his calcs and rationale ...
Not surprising for an EE to find errors in a CE's (EE) work. Like I said in
an earlier post, when I was in school the EIT had *no* electrical questions.
It was all CE stuff, for which I'd never even taken a course. Useless.
Joerg
Foreign universities and US universities in the 70's or 80's usually did
not have ABET accreditation. Whatever it means, I am not a fan of that
anyhow. One shall leave the curriculum and all that to the people who
know, and that would be the professor at that university.
>> Quote: "Gain acceptable work experience (typically a minimum of four
>> years). In most cases, this must be completed under the supervision of a
>> P.E." Which, for example, in my case is impossible because there are no
>> PEs in the industries I work. Certainly never met one in medical and
>> that's now 24 years and counting.
>
> If there are no PEs in the industry, obviously the shingle isn't of much use.
> I've worked around PEs all my career. The only use the shingle had was to put
> some pompous letter behind their name on a business card. Might just as well
> put "A+" after their name, though.
>
Yep. Such onerous requirements lead the whole thing almost ad absurdum.
It is not useful IMHO. Seems like our state saw it that way as well when
they decided to just make the board a small group under the Department
of Consumer Affairs many years ago.
>>> You also have to have a "good character". ;-)
>>>
>> One expression that made me chuckle was "... must not have committed
>> acts of moral turpitude" :-)
>
> Rats!
>
:-)
>>>>> Looks like at least some states have a technical content to the exam,
>>>>> which seems pretty redundant unless they feel they don't have a way of
>>>>> knowing if the degrees are any good.
>>>> Across the US most if not all states use the NCEES test materials and it
>>>> is pretty much all technical, but sophomore and junior year stuff. Canada
>>>> may use NCEES as well.
>>> No, Ontario candidates who have accredited (by the CEAB, a branch of
>>> the PEO) education don't need to be retested on technical matters. But
>>> they're quite serious about the law and ethics exam.
>>>
>>> Actually as this is a self-regulating profession (with a bit of
>>> legislation to give teeth to the enforcement folks) the bureacracy is
>>> not too bad.
>>>
>> My first encounter with a PE (civil engineer) resulted in me (!) finding
>> a bug in his calcs and rationale ...
>
> Not surprising for an EE to find errors in a CE's (EE) work. Like I said in
> an earlier post, when I was in school the EIT had *no* electrical questions.
> It was all CE stuff, for which I'd never even taken a course. Useless.
I found the errors in inclination calcs, not exactly EE stuff. Plus
flaws in interpretation of the law. Findings which I presented at a
pretty crowded meeting and again in a certified mailing, just to make
sure the message is "driven home" properly and would hold in court if
necessary. There was some silence afterwards, and then full compliance
with what I thought needs to happen, not what they thought needs to
happen. Oh did everyone become friendly, like day and night :-)
Could go further but not in public, because on a personal level I liked
the guy. Not sure he's still around, he was older.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
US universities were certainly accredited. Mine was. I remember preparing
for the silly dog and pony shows. Professors? They're hired to do research
(a battle I remember my father fighting - and losing).
>>> Quote: "Gain acceptable work experience (typically a minimum of four
>>> years). In most cases, this must be completed under the supervision of a
>>> P.E." Which, for example, in my case is impossible because there are no
>>> PEs in the industries I work. Certainly never met one in medical and
>>> that's now 24 years and counting.
>>
>> If there are no PEs in the industry, obviously the shingle isn't of much use.
>> I've worked around PEs all my career. The only use the shingle had was to put
>> some pompous letter behind their name on a business card. Might just as well
>> put "A+" after their name, though.
>>
>
>Yep. Such onerous requirements lead the whole thing almost ad absurdum.
>It is not useful IMHO. Seems like our state saw it that way as well when
>they decided to just make the board a small group under the Department
>of Consumer Affairs many years ago.
I suppose it *could* mean something. I doubt I'd go to a doctor that didn't
have MD after his name. Maybe I would, though. Most of the reason I need a
doctor is *because* of their monopoly.
Ah, a public humiliation meeting. They're always appreciated, and remembered.
>Could go further but not in public, because on a personal level I liked
>the guy. Not sure he's still around, he was older.
Not necessary.
Michael A. Terrell
Like going to the beach to play with little black balls?
Michael A. Terrell
"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
>
> I suppose it *could* mean something. I doubt I'd go to a doctor that didn't
> have MD after his name. Maybe I would, though. Most of the reason I need a
> doctor is *because* of their monopoly.
These days lawyers and politicians practice medicine. :(
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:23:30 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Obama swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, too.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, but he never said he wouldn't rip it up and burn it before he
>> >put the ashes in an urn.
>>
>> That interpretation of "preserve, protect and defend" makes as much sense as
>> anything else the moron has done.
>
>
> Like going to the beach to play with little black balls?
Watch it! ...or you'll have Sharpton *and* Dobson on your doorstep.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
>>
>> I suppose it *could* mean something. I doubt I'd go to a doctor that didn't
>> have MD after his name. Maybe I would, though. Most of the reason I need a
>> doctor is *because* of their monopoly.
>
>
>
> These days lawyers and politicians practice medicine. :(
Don't forget the government bureaucrats.
Joerg
Nope. First search engine hit:
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=ime_fac
Quote: "Out of the 300 engineering colleges in the United States, there
are only 24 ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology)-accredited manufacturing engineering programs"
> ... Mine was. I remember preparing
> for the silly dog and pony shows. Professors? They're hired to do research
> (a battle I remember my father fighting - and losing).
>
Luckily, at my university most professors took their teaching role
seriously. But not all.
>>>> Quote: "Gain acceptable work experience (typically a minimum of four
>>>> years). In most cases, this must be completed under the supervision of a
>>>> P.E." Which, for example, in my case is impossible because there are no
>>>> PEs in the industries I work. Certainly never met one in medical and
>>>> that's now 24 years and counting.
>>> If there are no PEs in the industry, obviously the shingle isn't of much use.
>>> I've worked around PEs all my career. The only use the shingle had was to put
>>> some pompous letter behind their name on a business card. Might just as well
>>> put "A+" after their name, though.
>>>
>> Yep. Such onerous requirements lead the whole thing almost ad absurdum.
>> It is not useful IMHO. Seems like our state saw it that way as well when
>> they decided to just make the board a small group under the Department
>> of Consumer Affairs many years ago.
>
> I suppose it *could* mean something. I doubt I'd go to a doctor that didn't
> have MD after his name. Maybe I would, though. Most of the reason I need a
> doctor is *because* of their monopoly.
>
Some countries in Europe have "healing practitioners" and some are a
hell of a lot better than many doctors I've seen. Case in point: _All_
of the doctors trying to diagnose and treat my recurring back pain
failed to mention that one major cause can be a magnesium deficiency. A
CPA finally told me. So I started taking supplements -> Bingo!
[...]
That was not my intent, I am not the kind of guy who likes doing that.
But they wanted to have a whole neighborhood over the barrel so we had
no choice but to prove that they were wrong. Personal communication from
my side was ignored, threat letters had gone out from their side, and
once that happens the gloves come off. At least mine. They are very
quiet since then :-)
[...]